Const. Co. v. Burks, 189 Ark. 947, 75 S.W.2d 794; Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W.2d 14; Arkansas Quicksilver Co. v. McGhee, (1933) 187 Ark. 883, 63 S.W.2d 280; Northern P. Ry. Co. v. Berven, 73 Fed. 2d 687; Maslek v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 26 Ohio App. 530, 160 N.E. 523; Yates v. Atlantic Ice Coal Co., 76 F.2d 86; Tillian v. Atchison, T. S.F. Ry. Co., (1935) 40 N.M. 80, 55 P.2d 34.) As supplemental to what is said above, we submit a list of recent court decisions: Weatherford v. Fiske-Carter Const. Co., (1937) 182 S.C. 294, 189 S.E. 224; Everett Hardware Co. v. Shaw, (Miss. 1937) 172 So. 337; Bowman v. Kansas City Electric L. Co., (Mo.App. 1919) 213 S.W. 161; Pearl River Valley R. Co. v. Moody, (Miss. 1937) 171 So. 769; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Hunnicutt, (Ark. 1937) 104 S.W.2d 1070; Albright v. Pennsylvania R. Co., (1936) 16 F. Supp. 281; Northwestern P. R. Co. v. Fiedler, (C.C.A. 9th, 1931) 52 F.2d 400; Louisville N.R. Co. v. Hall, (1931) 223 Ala. 338, 135 So. 466; Makino v. Spokane P. S. Ry. Co., (1937) 155 Or. 317, 63 P.2d 1082; Kansas O. G. Ry. Co. v. Hawkins, (1936) 171 Okla. 639, 64 P.2d 266; Foxe v. Southern P. Co., 121 Cal.App. 633, 9 P.2d 514; Haskins v. Southern P. Co., (1935) 3 Cal.App.2d 177, 39 P.2d 895; Good v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 339 Mo. 330, 97 S.W.2d 612; Owusso Mfg. Co. v. Drennan, (1930) 182 Ark. 389, 31 S.W.2d 762. MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN delivered the opinion of the court.

Such argument could lead the jury to believe that the law as declared by the court is unjust and that the jurors possess the authority to ignore it, and is not germane to any legitimate function of an argument to the jury. Makino v. Spokane, P. S. Ry. Co., 155 Or. 317, 63 P.2d 1082, 1090. Notwithstanding it was improper for counsel to cast aspersions on, denigrate, and castigate the defense of contributory negligence the court permitted counsel to make a stinging attack on this defense as a defense.

" (Italics ours.) In Makino v. Spokane, Portland Seattle Ry. Co., 155 Or. 317, 324, 63 P.2d 1082, we discussed in detail the history of the doctrine of assumption of risk and the later modifications thereof. We said:

"(1) The power and jurisdiction of the commission shall be continuing, and it may, upon its own motion, from time to time modify, change or terminate its former findings, orders or awards if in its opinion such action is justified." He cites as authority Makino v. S., P. S. Ry. Co., 155 Or. 317, 63 P.2d 1082 (1937). We do not agree with plaintiff's position nor do we construe the Makino case as supporting it. The pertinent language there, at p 336, is: